alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                          STATE OF
                                                                                          PERCENTAGE    INCORPORATION
                                                                                              OF             OR
                   PARENT                                   SUBSIDIARY                    OWNERSHIP     ORGANIZATION
    --------------------------------------    -----------------------------------------  ------------  ---------------
<S>                                           <C>                                        <C>           <C>
    ITLA Capital Corporation                  Imperial Thrift and Loan Association          100%         California

    ITLA Capital Corporation                  ITLA Funding Corporation                      100%          Delaware

    ITLA Funding Corporation                  ITLA Servicing Corporation                    100%          Delaware

    ITLA Funding Corporation                  ITLA Commercial Warehouse Corporation         100%          Delaware

    ITLA Capital Corporation                  ITLA Management Corporation                   100%          Delaware

    ITLA Management Corporation               ITLA Commercial Investment Corporation        100%          Maryland

    ITLA Commercial Investment Corporation    ITLA Commercial Securitization Corporation    100%          Delaware
</TABLE>



                                       90
exv10w2






Exhibit 10.2




SECOND AMENDMENT TO

EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     WHEREAS, Nabors Industries Ltd. and Nabors Industries, Inc. (collectively, “the Company”) and
Anthony G. Petrello (“Employee”), entered into an Executive Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”)
effective as of April 1, 2009 and a First Amendment to the Agreement effective as of June 29, 2009
(the “First Amendment”); and



     WHEREAS, in consideration of the current economic conditions and in lieu of other cost
reductions, Employee and the Company desire to continue to decrease temporarily the compensation
payable to Employee under the Agreement;



     NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and obligations
contained herein, the Company and Employee agree to amend the Agreement as follows, effective
December 28, 2009:




	 	1.	 	Section 3.1(a) of the Agreement is amended by changing the language added by
the First Amendment to read: “However, on an interim basis commencing June 29, 2009 and
ending on June 27, 2010 the amount of base salary due and payable for purposes of
biweekly payroll administration only shall be based on an annual salary of Nine Hundred
Ninety Thousand Dollars ($990,000). For all other purposes under this Agreement, the
term “Base Salary” or “base salary” shall be construed in accordance with the first
sentence of this Section 3.1(a) as if the preceding sentence’s modification had not
occurred.”






	 	2.	 	As amended by paragraph 1 above, the Agreement remains in full force and
effect. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts each of which shall
be deemed an original but which taken together shall constitute one and the same
instrument.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this amendment on the 28th day of December,
2009.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	COMPANY:



Nabors Industries Ltd.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Martin J. Whitman
 	 
	 
	 	Nabors Industries, Inc.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Laura W. Doerre
 	 
	 	 	Its Secretary 	 
	 	 	 	 













 






	 	 	 	 	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	EMPLOYEE:

 	 
	 	/s/ Anthony G. Petrello
 	 
	 	Anthony G. Petrello 	 
	 	 	 
	 




2
The HONORABLE DONALD J. STOHR, United States District Judge for the 1 Eastern District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_______________ Nos. 97-2296/3397

_______________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeals from the United States * District Court for the $281,000, in U.S. Currency, * Eastern District of Missouri. * Defendant, * [UNPUBLISHED] * William Yancey Jones, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 7, 1998 Filed: May 12, 1998

___________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. William Yancey Jones appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment 1 in favor of the United States on its claim seeking forfeiture of $281,130 in currency-2-

und er 21 U.S.C. § 881. Jones argues that the government’s claim is barred by re s judicat a because the currency was not included in the properties forfeited in Jones’ s prior criminal proceedings. Even assuming res judicata principles may apply between civil and criminal forfeiture proceedings, cf. United States v. Maul l , 855 F.2d 514, 516- 17 (8th Cir. 1988), Jones’s contention fails because the currency here at issue was not before the c ourt and adjudicated in the prior criminal proceedings. We also rejec t Jones & s remaining jurisdiction, double jeopardy, and estoppel arguments as withou t merit. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### In the Matter of Leon Lebensbaum, Petitioner, v Adelphi University et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to Exec*394utive Law § 298 (as amended L 1984, ch 83, § 3) to review a determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights, dated July 1,1983, which, after an investigation, found there to be no probable cause to believe that respondent Adelphi University engaged in the unlawful discriminatory practice complained of and dismissed the complaint.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed, with costs to Adelphi University, to be taxed by the County Clerk of Nassau County under CPLR 8203, 8301.

There was substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner was not appointed chairman of the accounting department of Adelphi University because the faculty was sharply divided over his appointment, and not because he had previously been arrested on, and acquitted of, a criminal charge (see, Executive Law § 296 [16]). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
# C_2020161EN.01001501.xml

| 11.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 18 November 2019 — Autostrada Torino Ivrea Valle d’Aosta — Ativa SpA v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dell’Economia and delle Finanze, Autorità di bacino del Po

(Case C-835/19)

(2020/C 161/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Autostrada Torino Ivrea Valle d’Aosta — Ativa SpA

Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dell’Economia and delle Finanze, Autorità di bacino del Po

Question referred

With regard to the award of concessions, does [EU] law, in particular the principles laid down in Directive [2014/23], (1) specifically freedom of choice as regards award procedures in accordance with the principles of transparency and [equal] treatment, as referred to in recital 68 and Article 30 of the directive, preclude the application of the provisions laid down in Article 178(8-bis) of Legislative Decree No 50 of 18 April 2016, which unconditionally prohibit the award by administrative authorities of motorway concessions in respect of concessions that have expired or are due to expire, using the procedures laid down in Article 183 [of the decree], which governs project financing?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1).

---
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Technology Flavors & Fragrances, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Joseph A. Gemmo, Chief Financial Officer certify, to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 0f 2002:

     1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a)
              or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; as amended;
              and

     2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
              material respects, the financial condition and results of
              operations of the Company.


Date: March 15, 2005


/s/ Joseph A. Gemmo
-----------------------
Chief Financial Officer



NOTE: A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       24
Charles W. Schroeder, Elsie 

A. Schroeder s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 12, 2015

No. 04-14-00167-CV

STEPHENS & JOHNSON OPERATING CO.; Henry W. Breyer, III, Trust; CAH, Ltd.-MOPI 

for Capital Account; CAH, Ltd.-Stivers Capital Account; CAH, Ltd.-Wiegand Resources Capital 

Account Wiegand Resources; C.T. Carden; Myrl W. Deitch Trust; E.R. Godbout Family Tru,

Appellants

v.

Charles W. SCHROEDER, Elsie A. Schroeder Schneider, Hollis London, Terry Mengers Reel, 

Ted Mengers, Debbie Mengers Quates, August H. Setinmeyer, Carole Schroeder Miller, James 

M. Schroeder, Sally Schroeder Tinanus, James E. Schroeder, Sue Schroeder Stanfo,

Appellees

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Jim Hogg County, Texas

Trial Court No. CC-04-143

Honorable Ana Lisa Garza, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 12th day of March, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# C_2020378EN.01003101.xml

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Gothe and Kunz v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (FAIR ZONE)

(Case T-589/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark FAIR ZONE - Earlier EU word mark FAIR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 378/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Oliver Gothe (Cologne, Germany) and Martin Kunz (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Kruse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen, and M. Minkner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 3 July 2019 (Case R 2253/2018-4), concerning opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Aldi Einkauf and, on the other hand, Mr Gothe and Mr Kunz.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | The action is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed;

| 2. | Mr Oliver Gothe and Mr Martin Kunz are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Oliver Gothe and Mr Martin Kunz are ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.

---
#### In the Matter of Daniel N. Perlmutter, an Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department,

April 22, 1986

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Michael A. Gentile*for petitioner.

No appearance on behalf of respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Petitioner, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Department moves for an order striking respondent’s *362name from the roll of attorneys pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b).

Respondent was admitted to practice in the Second Department on March 11, 1981. During the relevant periods of the misconduct alleged herein, the respondent maintained an office for the practice of law in the First Department.

Upon his plea of guilty, respondent was convicted in United States District Court on January 10, 1986, of three counts of stealing property from an agency of the United States Government (18 USC § 641) (one count each, respectively, for heroin, cocaine, and money) and two counts of possession of narcotic drug controlled substances (21 USC § 844 [a]) (one count each, respectively, for heroin and cocaine), and sentenced to a three-year prison term on the first count and concurrent five-year terms of probation on the remaining counts. A certified copy of this judgment of conviction has been submitted to this court. (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [b].)

The crimes of which respondent has been convicted are felonies under Federal law and are offenses which, if committed within this State, would be felonies, to wit, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree (Penal Law § 220.21) and grand larceny in the second degree (Penal Law § 155.35).

As a result of his felony conviction, respondent has been automatically disbarred (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [a]).

Accordingly, the petition should be granted and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law. (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [b].)

Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Carro, Fein and Ellerin, JJ., concur.

Respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York.
# C_2020247EN.01001101.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — eSky Group IP v EUIPO — Gröpel (e)

(Case T-646/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark e - Earlier international figurative mark e - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 247/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: eSky Group IP sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: P. Kurcman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Gerhard Gröpel (Passau, Germany) (represented by: N. Maenz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2019 (Case R 223/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Gröpel and eSky Group IP.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders eSky Group IP sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders eSky Group IP sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 368 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 368

 To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to suspend a 
 limitation on the period for which certain borrowers are eligible for 
                         guaranteed assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 16, 2011

    Mr. Kohl (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Udall of 
 Colorado, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Johnson of South 
Dakota, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Conrad, and 
 Mrs. Gillibrand) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 
 and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to suspend a 
 limitation on the period for which certain borrowers are eligible for 
                         guaranteed assistance.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF LIMITATION ON PERIOD FOR WHICH BORROWERS ARE 
              ELIGIBLE FOR GUARANTEED ASSISTANCE.

    Section 319(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 
(7 U.S.C. 1949(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and 
        inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) Suspension.--During the period beginning December 31, 
        2010, and ending December 31, 2013, paragraph (1) shall have no 
        force or effect.''.
                                 <all>
```
IIA 

Calendar No. 220 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 27 

Disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the mitigation by States of cross-border air pollution under the 

Clean Air Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. JOHANNS, and Mr. CORNYN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

NOVEMBER 3, 2011 

Committee discharged by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c), and placed 

on the calendar 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the mitigation by States of crossborder air pollution under the Clean Air Act. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted to Congress 

4 by the Environmental Protection Agency on July 11, 

5 2011, entitled ‘‘Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

SJ 27 PCS 

1 Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Cor2 rection of SIP Approvals’’ (76 Fed. Reg. 48208 (August 

3 8, 2011)), relating to the mitigation by States of cross4 border air pollution under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

5 7401 et seq.), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 220 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 27 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving a rule submitted by the Environthe Clean Air Act. tion by States of cross-border air pollution under mental Protection Agency relating to the mitigaNOVEMBER 3, 2011 

Committee discharged by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

802(c), and placed on the calendar 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 USC SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Medallion Financial Corp. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my
knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates
and for the periods expressed in the Report.



|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ Alvin Murstein                  
|    |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Date: March 13, 2008
# C_2020191EN.01001701.xml

| 8.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/17

---

Order of the General Court of 31 March 2020 — Merly v Parliament

(Case T-505/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Civil service - Accredited parliamentary assistant - Special leave for the birth of children born via surrogacy - Answer to a request for information - No act adversely affecting an official - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 191/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Grégory Merly (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: T. Oeyen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Windisch and C. González Argüelles, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the alleged decision of the Parliament of 30 October 2018 refusing to grant the applicant special leave, equivalent to maternity leave or to the special leave to which adopted parents are entitled.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Grégory Merly shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Grégory Merly shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 9.9.2019.

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT SHANNON DOUGLAS ROBINSON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-494 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed May 2, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Donald G. Jacobsen, Judge. Shannon Douglas Robinson, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Nicholean Bernard HICKLEN, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-7625.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.

Decided: Jan. 16, 2009.

*830Nicholean Bernard Hicklen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant. United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Nicholean Bernard Hicklen, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Hicklen,*No. 3:99-cr-00187-FDW-l (W.D.N.C. Aug. 11, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*